To Vote, simply *favorite* a post below:
.
POLL: Which Character Class Sucks the Most?
.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bard. It's not that they're underpowered, or uninteresting to play, but they just confuse me a lot. XD
How in the world are bards confusing!?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally dislike wizards. i know they're powerful and what not, but i always found their lack of both spells per day and lack of alternate methods of being useful in combat without said spells per day endlessly frustrating, since most GMs I play with usually have more encounters per day than I have magic...
They're confusing for people who have literally no experience with them. ;)
Bard sucks the most. In my PF campaign our party Bard had four lovers, more than the rest of the party altogether. Uh... You didn't meant that kind of sucking, did you?
How do you define suck for the purpose of this poll?
Paladins... cause you can't play an evil character without a big confrontation. Plus heavens wenches smite evil, are restricted by alignment, touch themselves, have an ability called mercy and lack feats
That does not help.
Are you asking which class is the least capable when taken in a vacuum?
Are you asking which class is the least able to function in a team?
Are you asking which class least fulfills the role it is designed for?
I could go on.
That does not help.
Are you asking which class is the least capable when taken in a vacuum?
Are you asking which class is the least able to function in a team?
Are you asking which class least fulfills the role it is designed for?
I could go on.
.
As the Beholder said to its enemy, "Look into my eye."
.
If I were you, I would take the variables you listed above, and maybe
a few others, and for each character class form a (non) linear combination of them.
Let's call this your objective function Q.
Your job is to then maximize or minimize Q (depending upon your view
point), subject to the constraints of *your* gaming world. And, report
your results.
If many people do this, the Law Of Large Numbers will kick in, and we
may be able to make an inference. However, this part will have to come
later in the story...
I removed a post. Really?
I removed a post. Really?I've never felt so curious before...
Yeah, it spark interest. For a moment I thought that my comment about my party bard got me deleted to keep things PG-13...
I chose the Ranger. Not that they are a bad class per se (and I like them thematically), but I find it too easy to replicate their repertoire with other classes, in particular the fighter with the right feat choices, in particular with some druid multi-classing. I've yet to play a Pathfinder ranger so I'm not sure how much they've improved since 3.5.
L
Rogues are my least favourite. Wimpy fighters who wander away from the party. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Commoners.
But Commoners are good for fodder!
Why is this in the 3.5/d20 forum when the OP is singling out Pathfinder versions of the classes?
I chose the Ranger. Not that they are a bad class per se (and I like them thematically), but I find it too easy to replicate their repertoire with other classes, in particular the fighter with the right feat choices, in particular with some druid multi-classing. I've yet to play a Pathfinder ranger so I'm not sure how much they've improved since 3.5.
L
Hang on, I need to change my vote to this. Nothing against rangers, but they're probably the most limited class--you can dual-wield, or you can shoot. They probably fixed that with some archetypes, but if you don't have access to the APG and don't want to use the SRD, you're stuck.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Nothing against rangers, but they're probably the most limited class--you can dual-wield, or you can shoot.
Because your character can only do the things he gets bonus feats for...? Or are you under the impression that the ranger's "style" is more than just a couple of free feats?
|
Nothing against rangers, but they're probably the most limited class--you can dual-wield, or you can shoot.Because your character can only do the things he gets bonus feats for...? Or are you under the impression that the ranger's "style" is more than just a couple of free feats?
From a minmaxing point of view, if you know you'll get some free feats, build your character to make the best use of them. So, if you are getting archery feats, be an archer!
of course if you are not power gaming it's diffrent, but that also renders the entire thread pointless because then it's all about playing what's fun, not waht's best.
My point is that if you don't favor the styles, you are ignoring a major benefit. It's like forgoing the wizard bonus feats, or the monk's speed boost.
If by suck, do you mean one that cant be done better by multiclassing.
A Multiclass Cleric/Fighter is a better warrior than a paladin, a better healer than a paladin, and only lacks by having a lower bab...with the right domains it even has smite.
A multiclass Druid/fighter. is ditto for the Ranger. It is better with animals than a ranger, better spells than a ranger, a better animal companion, plus if you pick the right feats you are again only losing a little BAB with just as good combat abilities once you start casting spells on yourself
A Multiclass Wizard/Rogue does better than a bard with spells that do damage, more skills, and a transmuter can even boost ability scores both with school abilities and spells to make up for any loss of BAB.
In fact with multiclassing, you can pretty much replace all but Barbarian and Monk with a multiclass combinations of ceric, druid, fighter, Rogue and wizard.
So half the classes suck.
(actually I love them all but my point still stands)
We need a lot more data. Perhaps you can email this link to 5 of your friends.
The bard seems useless in combat, but then again what is more frightening than a epic level bard showin of his epic lute skills right in your face in front of the barmaids!
Paladins. Barely passable attack bonus and damage even if you max out the strength. Charisma bonus to saves helps but ultimately doesn't cut it. Saves are horrible to barely acceptable even with a high charisma, with the exception of fort. Summoning mount can help but will go down like a sack of potatoes if anything remotely hard-hitting is in the encounter. Smite evil is nice but the number of them you get is so few that it almost doesn't matter. Beefing it up with feats still can't allow you to have enough of it to clear out even half a dungeon. Spellcasting ability is so limited, you'll have better luck trying to kill a mammoth with a fly-swatter. Immunity to fear and diseases are nice but surface in maybe 2% of the entire campaign. d10 hit die is good but only allows you to stand around a little longer and take more pounding to get killed. AC is horrible unless you go full plate, tower shield and a mountain of magic enhancements. Skill points are very low, making their ability to contribute through skills almost non-existent. The entire class is a joke and a bad one. While I'm not a fan of how pathfinder gave them mercy abilities, I can understand why they did it. After all, it takes a significantly huge boost to make what is by far, the weakest player class, hold its own with the other non-useless player classes. Even a CR4 warrior would probably stand a reasonable chance of beating a level 8 paladin, provided he isn't evil.